MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W100634105 · doi:10.1177/070674370805300403

Epidemiology of Chronic Pain with Psychological Comorbidity: Prevalence, Risk, Course, and Prognosis

2008· review· en· W100634105 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Eldon Tunks, Joan Crook, Robin Weir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic painComorbidityPsychosocialMedicineEpidemiologyDepression (economics)Context (archaeology)PopulationPsychiatryMental healthPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the relation between chronic pain and psychological comorbidities, and the influence on course and prognosis, based on epidemiologic and population studies. METHOD: We present a narrative overview of studies dealing with the epidemiology of chronic pain associated with mental health and psychiatric factors. Studies were selected that were of good quality, preferably large studies, and those that dealt with prevalences, course and prognosis of chronic pain, risk factors predicting new pain and comorbid disorders, and factors that affect health outcomes. RESULTS: Chronic pain is a prevalent condition, and psychological comorbidity is a frequent complication that significantly changes the prognosis and course of chronic pain. In follow-up studies, chronic pain significantly predicts onset of new depressions, and depression significantly predicts onset of new chronic pain and other medical complaints. Age, sex, severity of pain, psychosocial problems, unemployment, and compensation are mediating factors in course and prognosis. CONCLUSION: In assessment of chronic pain, the evidence from epidemiologic studies makes it clear that chronic pain can best be understood in the context of psychosocial factors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations324
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207